Aside from current events and geopolitics, we here at Coming Anarchy also dabble in our fair share of other topics including geography, history, law, religion and sociology. One topic we have occasionally covered has been weapons and technology. So, to combine several of our favorite themes, I’d like to bring you a short history of two of my favorite historical weapons with some surprising details you may not know.

Ever heard of the StG 44? Probably not. Heard of the AK-47? You bet. But the StG 44 is actually the first assault rifle which all subsequent weapons were based on: the AK, G3, M16, current M4 etc. And as usual, it was the Germans who led the way.

I recently came across this post at War is Boring, which is a fine blog, but it repeated one of the most annoying, ill informed and simply incorrect stock journalistic phrases regarding the AK-47.

“No single weapon — save the atomic bomb — has had as profound an impact on modern warfare and global instability,” Larry Kahaner wrote in his biography of the weapon.

Granted, he was quoting someone else and its something so frequently repeated that few question it, but the quote itself is simply incorrect. The AK-47, while a Russian weapon, is in fact a modified version of a German weapon, which is the actual first assault rifle that revolutionized small arms and warfare, the StG 44 (Sturmgewehr 44). As in so many other cases, the Germans were quick to realize the failure and faults of past methods of warfare and weapons and masterfully designed new ones. Despite having lost WWII, the Germans were technologically far beyond the rest of the world at the time.

As Wikipedia notes, “While the StG44 had less range and power than the more powerful infantry rifles of the day, Wehrmacht studies had shown that most combat engagements occurred at less than 300 m with the majority within 200 m. Full-power rifle cartridges were excessive for the vast majority of uses for the average soldier.” Moreover, the small capcity and low rate of fire of bolt action rifles was simply inadequate.

Those interested in more of the details can read more at the linked Wikipedia article. On a side note, this author recently looked at an authentic StG 44 at a gun show. Its price? $22,000 dollars! This is due in part to its being antique but largely due to ridiculous US restrictions on automatic weapons. Anyone interested in purchasing one would likely need to sell their car(s) first, or perhaps the proverbial arm and a leg.

Lastly, unbeknownst to most people, Germany today is actually the world’s third largest exporter of arms. Specifically, the southwestern state of Baden-Wuerttemberg (where I lived for many years) excells in firearms being home to Mauser, Heckler and Koch and Walther.

Those of you familiar with small arms, WWII, or just Call of Duty are certaintly familiar with the infamous PPSH 41, a Russian sub machine gun. And yet, as with so many Russian things, they were not in fact ‘Russian’ but adaptations or copies of other countries’ weapons. There are numerous examples of this but I’d like to focus on the Russian PPSH-41.

After the Winter War, in which the Russians were massacred by little old Finland, the Russians quickly adopted a Finnish weapon which had proven so effective against them, the Suomi.

The Suomi KP/-31 is regarded by many as one of the most successful submachine guns of World War II and it was so successful that many of its features (including the 71-round drum magazine) were later copied and adopted by the Soviets for their PPD-40 and PPSh-41 submachine guns.[2] The accuracy compared to the mass-produced PPSh-41 was superior however, thanks in part to a noticeably longer barrel, with the same rate of fire and the equally large magazine capacity. The major failing of the Suomi-KP was its high production costs.

Originals of either weapon are hard to come by and extremely expensive. However, partially rebuilt models are available for around $600 chambered in the original 9mm parabellum (the cartridge being a German invention of course). However, the changes made to accomodate US laws take some of the fun away (increased barrel length and being semi automatic).

If you’ve enjoyed this historical weapons related thread, do chime in in the comments since it’s not part of our usual programming.

Readers will note that the members of Coming Anarchy have traveled and lived all over the world. Thus, our perspective and personal values are often influenced by this and leave us at times feeling a bit ‘foreign’ ourselves when at home. With that, I bring you a short departure from geopolitics and towards culture.

One issue that has interested me over the years, and about which I’ve been on both sides of the argument, is that of Sundays. Those who have visited or lived in Europe will recall that on Sunday, stores are generally closed with very few exceptions (gas stations, some restaurants). Americans generally react with a combination of annoyance at being inconvenienced and indignation at the alleged lack of freedom. Indeed, there is validty to both of these points, but they fail to understand that there are simply different values driving such policies and the merit to them.

Germany’s Der Spiegel (which I normally hesitate to link to) has a good article discussing the reactions to a recent Supreme Court decision upholding Sunday as a day of rest. Surprising to most people is the fact that it is actually established in the German constitution. Reactions from around the country include arguments based on religion, secularism, economics, family policies, workers rights and individual liberties. I’ve included a selected few below for comparison but recommend reading the article in its entirety (it’s rather short anyway).

(From a center-right paper)

The great diversity of working lives brings with it the fact that members of a single family are forced into different and sometimes incompatible working hours. If the state does not use some of its regulatory power to give a dependable rhythm to at least one free day—and that is still Sunday—then the family faces the threat of being pulled further apart.”

“If they have no time with each other and for each other, then the formal notion of belonging together loses value. This danger faces many families in society. … The fact that in the face of growing commercialization and fewer jobs hardly any employee ever dares to ask for a free Saturday, led the labor unions to join the churches in their campaign—with noticeable success.”

(from a center-left paper)

“It may sound old fashioned but it is still correct: Sunday is Sunday because it is unlike other days. This is not about tradition or religion or a social heritage. Sunday is more than just a day off for individuals. It that were so, then it wouldn’t matter if someone took a day off on Tuesday or Thursday. It is a day to synchronize society, that is what makes it so important. Without Sunday, every day would be a working day and a fixed point in the week would disappear. Of course there can be exceptions, there have always been particular professions who work on Sundays. But when the exception becomes the rule, then the commercialization of Sundays will not end at the department stores.”

(from a left leaning paper)

“Sunday as a day off is a great gift. The treadmill is closed for 24 hours. The court has given relaxation, rest and ‘spiritual elevation’ precedence over the thirst for profit and the right to a consumer fix. However, it made it clear in its ruling that Sunday was not just for those who wanted to practise their religion undisturbed. It is also to play cards, go for a walk or simply to laze around. After all even the strictest atheist needs the switching off that Sundays allow.”

After years of life in Germany and initially being against the restrictions on Sundays, I am now a strong supporter. While I deeply sympathize with both the economic and especially individual liberties arguments, I actually feel that maintaining Sundays off protects the freedom of many people to actually enjoy their lives, as opposed to being forced to work. It also helps to strengthen families and other personal relationships,increase mental and physical health through time off and adds to overall quality of life and happiness. In short, I would support such a measure at home, including of course exceptions for certain businesses (as in Europe). Readers, your thoughts?

Already today media outlets across the world are featuring tomorrow’s 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. I do not having anything to add except for my own memory: the coming down of the wall was the first international political event that I remember experiencing as a boy. I remember thinking, “History is being made today.”

I thought I would leave this an open thread if anyone has any comments or experiences to relate.

Although the news is currently focusing on the shooting of over a hundred protesters in Guinea, another side of the story unheard in English language news regards the background of the country’s current president, Moussa Dadis Camara. Prior to overthrowing the government in his native country, he received 18 months of military training in Bremen, Germany (link in German) at the Führungsakadamie der Bundeswehr (link in German). Needless to say, Germany is less than thrilled about the news. However, no one would likely have known had Camara not been speaking German in public. According to reports, several of his closest friends were also sent to Germany for training and thus speak fluent German, very rare in Guinea. Therefore, he has apparently been using it as a ‘secret language.’ Additionally, he apparently talks to the foreign press in German as well.

Most humorous was an exchange between him and the German ambassador in which the ambassador carefully asked about the future return of elections and civilian leadership. Camara began yelling that it was his country and he could do as he liked because he was president and in an Eric Cartman-esque moment, to “Respect my authority.” Whether this turns out to be a domestic issue is unclear at the moment but overall unlikely. With the election Sunday, the economic crisis and many other big fish to fry, this will probably remain an interesting side story. However, as Germany trains more and more foreign students (both police and military) these types of events may come back to haunt them down the road similar to our School of the Americas which had to undergo a name change. Given that the German people are uneasy about all military matters, bad press like this will only serve to further decrease public support for any kind of military engagement whether training foreigners at home or operating abroad.

Here is a quick summary of an article in the Tagesschau, a German language news source.

Background

Under the German constitution, only parliament has the power to send German troops into combat, not the Chancellor. This condition is based on World War II as well as the clause written into the constitution that Germany may not engage in Angriffskriege, or wars of aggression. It can thus only act with a UN mandate or lacking that, a NATO mandate (as in Kosovo). Additionally, it must vote yearly to renew that mandate. For Afghanistan, the Bundestag votes October 15th of every year.

Renewal

The Bundestag voted to new renew the German army’s mandate for Afghanistan by 14 months, i.e. until December 13th 2009. The vote was 442 yes, 96 no and 32 abstaining indicating overwhelming support for the mission, contrary to news reports. It also raises the maximum troop levels which the Ministry of Defense can send to 4,500, an increase of 1,000 soldiers. Germany is currently the third largest provider of ISAF troops.

However, Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung noted that the increase does not mean an additional thousand soldiers will immediately be sent. He stressed it means more flexibility for Germany in responding to the ongoing situation and that less engagement or pulling out is not an alternative as it would mean breaking Germany’s promises and failing to participate in its international responsibility.

While Georgia-Russia tensions have mostly brought involved the US, EU and aforementioned two parties, Germany has stepped in with its own plan for peace in Abkhazia. A Spiegel article notes the plan consists of three phases,

Phase one of the German plan envisages a year of trust-building measures. These would include declarations renouncing violence and the return of around 250,000 refugees to the province. The second phase would see the beginning of reconstruction work, with Berlin organizing a donors’ conference to drum up the necessary funds. The third and crucial phase would involve finding a political solution to the conflict, essentially whether Abkhazia should become reintegrated into Georgia or be granted independence.

Interestingly, the article notes that all sides have found the proposal reasonable. While making declarations renouncing violence should be simple for all parties involved, I’m skeptical of the return of a quarter of a million Georgian refugees. While the UN did recently adopt a resolution calling for the right of return of Georgian IDPs to their homes in Abkhazia. However, given the poor state of Abkhazia’s infrastructure and security, it is questionable how many people would return given that there may be nothing at all to return to and surely no economic or educational opportunities for young people. Additionally, given that the province was historically inhabited by a majority of Georgians, their return would dilute the Abkhaz to the point where the results of a future referendum on the area’s status may be a foregone conclusion.

I’ve checked the UN and German Foreign Office’s websites but have been unable to find further information. If readers have access sources in other languages or are able to find more information, please post links in the comments section. More to come as the situation develops and more details become available.

A few days ago, I alerted readers to another proposed security reform in Germany which would centralize Germany’s signals intelligence gathering. While I still have found little in the press in English or German, this longer Spiegel article outlines the concerns it has raised and the mood in Germany a bit more.

Germany Plans to Centralize Intelligence-Gathering Activities

German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble wants to set up a central communications monitoring agency in Cologne for use by the police and intelligence agencies, modeled after the US’s NSA and the UK’s GCHQ. But critics fear the creation of a powerful new super-agency.

When Deputy Interior Minister August Hanning starts talking about his latest official visit to the United Kingdom, the otherwise unemotional security expert waxes altogether enthusiastic.

The former head of Germany’s foreign intelligence service, the BND, describes a superforce of highly-trained specialists who sit at the most powerful and expensive computers where, in loyal service to Her Majesty the Queen, they pursue the delicate task of monitoring, recording, and evaluating electronic communications. Everything top secret, of course, and extremely effective.

Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) is the name of the agency that made such an impression on Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble’s deputy minister. The listening post is situated on the outskirts of Cheltenham and is housed in a ring-shaped complex that cost €1.8 billion ($2.8 billion) to build. It employs a staff of around 4,000 and is considered by experts to be the most modern facility of its kind in the world, on a par with the National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States. Enigma, the legendary German encryption machine used during World War II, is on display in an in-house museum and is the organization’s most prized trophy. It was the staff of GCHQ’s predecessor who cracked the supposedly unbreakable code, making it possible to decipher German radio communications from 1940 onwards.

As was the case with the cracking of the Enigma code back then, Hanning is convinced that agencies like GCHQ will make all the difference in today’s world—except that today security authorities see their main enemy as being Islamist terrorism inspired by Osama bin Laden.

The only problem is that no agency comparable to GCHQ exists in Germany. There is the Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA), the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), the Federal Intelligence Service (BND), and the Federal Police. All four currently have their own separate systems for monitoring communications. And that’s just at the national level—there are also numerous law enforcement and security agencies at the level of Germany’s 16 federal states. All in all, there are more than 75 separate monitoring facilities in operation nationwide—and they are frankly not very effective compared to the central monitoring stations in the UK and US.

This is likely to change in the near future. On orders from Schäuble’s ministry, a BKA project group has been working since April on the ambitious plan of giving Germany its own central agency for communications monitoring, known in the trade as signals intelligence. This large-scale monitoring initiative is the latest in a series of bold security policy reforms Schäuble has proposed—and is one that is particularly controversial.

Read the rest here.

Not long after proposing a comprehensive reform of Germany’s security policy, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in Germany is pushing for yet another security reform, combining Germany’s intelligence agencies under one roof. At the moment, German runs the following intelligence agencies:

* Federal Intelligence Service (BND or Bundesnachrichtendienst)

• Military Security Service (MAD or Militärischer Abschirmdienst)
• Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV or Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz)
• State Offices for the Protection of the Constitution (LfV or Landesbehörden für Verfassungsschutz)
  

The BfV however, consists of 16 separate agencies, one for each German state, which are coordinated at its central office in Cologne. Therefore, coordination and information sharing and overlap are ongoing issues to be dealt with. The new proposal from the Ministry of the Interior headed by Chirol’s favorite German politician Woflgang Schäuble would

set up a new authority to combine its various eavesdropping operations in a purpose-built headquarters near Cologne, news organizations reported.The combined police and espionage center would be modeled on the National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States or the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) in Britain.

[...] The interior ministry is keen to take away surveillance functions from the BND foreign intelligence service, and will argue that a new authority similar to the NSA could provide foreign and domestic eavesdropping from one spot. The system needs a revamp because modern communications are mainly digital and use sophisticated new encryption methods, creating a risk that police and intelligence services could be unable to crack the codes, according to Der Spiegel.

At the moment, the Federal Police (BPOL), Federal Criminal Police (BKA), the Federal Intelligence Service and the Office for the Protection of the Constitution all engage in surveillance activities. This plan would centralize the surveillance activities of each office into a new federal agency and “harmonize domestic and foreign communications surveillance.” Der Spiegel first reported on this Friday and there are still no other sources of information that I have found on the matter, neither in the German news nor on the German Interior Ministry’s website. Little public discussion has thus far taken place however it can be fairly easily predicted that this will come under criticism from the left as dangerous centralization and likely from the SPD for similar and political reasons.

I’ll keep readers posted with relevant developments and will have more soon on the proposed new security strategy for German. It is however, both interesting and exciting to watch Germany’s development in security policy and reform proposals of its military, security and intelligence agencies. Now if we could just get them to fight and kill…

More information can be found in German here.

With questions about a two-tier system for NATO and concerns about certain members being unreliable or not sharing the burden, a ruling by the German Supreme Court comes as more bad news. The issue this time was the deployment of German AWACs along the Turkish border with Iraq in 2003. The article notes that:

Germany had sent its Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) planes at the request of its NATO ally, Turkey. Germany provided crews to man NATO planes that flew surveillance flights near Turkey’s southern border which were meant to protect Turkey against an Iraqi attack during the US-led invasion. Schroeder’s government described the 2003 deployment as a “routine” NATO operation.

However, although a NATO flight in conjunction with Turkey would seem fairly uncontroversial, there was a much deeper issue at hand for the Germans, the risk of war. The AWACS were sent to patrol the border and to be able to alert and direct Turkish fighter jets in the event of an attack by Iraq, most likely with missiles. And although the planes are unarmed and used solely for command and control purposes, the risk that they could have become involved in a war was real, according to the German Supreme Court. Therefore, the previous government of Gerhard Schröder, acted illegally and unconstitutionally by putting the German military in a situation in which it could have potentially been involved in armed conflict. Only the German parliament has the authority to do such.

Effects

First of all, this ruling puts the Chancellor on a much tighter leash that before and strengthens the German parliament. It does not however, affect any current operations such as in Afghanistan, Djibouti or Kosovo nor is it likely to cause trouble for any politicians who were involved in the decision at the time. Yet, it could complicate future decisions, mostly minor ones, and subject them to prevailing political whims which may in turn further damage Germany’s reputation as an ally of the United States and as a reliable NATO member. However, outsiders do need to retain a bit of perspective as the Germans, and indeed their form of government, is rather explicit in its intention to keep the majority of power in the hands of the elected representatives of parliament and prevent an overly strong executive branch from repeating World War Two.

On a related note, this is also bad if not fatal news for the CDU’s proposal to create a German NSC.

In 1871, the many German states, previously divided and often at odds with each other, were united under the leadership of Prussia and Otto von Bismarck. Europe had long consisted of a strong France in the west, a divided series of weak states in central Europe and a strong Russia to the East. A united Germany radically changed the situation and led to new instability and a tightening of alliances. From 1871 until 1945, Europe struggled to find a new balance of power with room for a strong Germany and while balance has now come to Europe, the Germans themselves are nevertheless still searching for their proper role in Europe and indeed the world.

It is for these reasons that a seemingly innocuous and in fact logical step like creating a national security council has again sparked debate among citizens and politicians alike. At the moment, Germany has a Bundessicherheitsrat* (Federal Security Council) which deals mainly with the exports of arms. It is very different from what American or British readers would imagine when hearing the name. Over the past few years though, with the changes in both the domestic and international security situation, debate has been ongoing about whether Germany needs a National Security Council based more on the American model for example.

In 1998, the Red-Green coalition government (SPD and Green Party) laid out their ideas of the Bundessicherheitsrat in their coalition contract. It envisioned that the Bundessicherheitsrat took on more responsibility than its previous one of merely overseeing weapons exports. In 1998, the Red-Green government of the SPD-Grüne somewhat expanded its role* insofar as giving more weight to the domestic situation in countries purchasing German weapons. Yet, despite the name, it is still a far cry from what other countries have. To begin with, a national security council

is usually an executive branch governmental body responsible for coordinating policy on national security issues and advising chief executives on matters related to national security. An NSC is often headed by a national security adviser and staffed with senior-level officials from military, diplomatic, intelligence, law enforcement and other governmental bodies.

Indeed, the US model for example consists of the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the National Security adviser, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Director of National Intelligence, President’s Chief of Staff, Counsel and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. Included in the Director of National Intelligence are the 16 agencies in the US Intelligence Community both foreign (CIA, NSA, etc) and domestic (FBI, DEA etc). Hence, both internal and external security issues are discussed and coordinated. This stands in contrast to Germany’s current system for example.

In Germany however, no such coordinating and advisory body exists. It is with that, and the changing nature of threats, in mind that the Christian Democratic Union (CDU – center right) has proposed* creating a U.S. style NSC. The proposal notes that “In order to guarantee coherent and effective interagency work combining both domestic and foreign security, a national security council is necessary as a center for political analysis, coordination and decision making” (my translation). Among other things, it will help to coordinate Germany’s domestic agencies like the Verfassungsschutz and Bundeskriminalamt (like the FBI) with the German military and Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND). As Volker Kauder, Chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag, noted, “Especially with the threat of global terrorism, it’s important to overcome the traditional boundaries between domestic and foreign security.” True enough, but that’s much easier said than done in post-WW2 Germany.

The proposal, under on and off discussion since 2004 and however logical to outsiders, deals with a very touchy. It has been subject to severe criticism by other parties like the SPD and FDP and has been met with skepticism by ordinary Germans. Remember, despite Germany’s previous military achievements in technology and fighting not to mention its world-renowned weapons manufacturers, Germany is still a country where only 62% of its men would fight to defend it and around 75% of the country thinks it is never acceptable to use violence to achieve important political goals. In fact, the German constitution explicitly states that no one can be forced to bear arms. It is with that in mind that critics say plans for an NSC must be done away with, that it is entirely unnecessary, that it could undermind Germany’s foreign policy and how much influence it would have on policy in relation to parliament. In addition, the opposition worries it would lead to more German military participation abroad and potentially use of the German army domestically (Germany has no national guard). Yet, Kauder and others ask about the increasing importance of energy security and “How should we react when China supports dictators to ensure access to raw materials?”

This Wednesday, May 7th, the CDU is holding a conference (English) to discuss their new 16 page Entwurf für eine Sicherheitsstrategie für Deutschland (Draft for a Security Strategy for Germany). The English description of the even is as follows:

Germany’s involvement in international peacekeeping missions in Afghanistan and in the Balkans is the result of the new role our country has assumed in international security policy. The growing threat of terrorist activity, nuclear proliferation, dependency on certain countries for energy and raw materials and the consequences of climate change demand a comprehensive overhaul of our security policy concept. Current debates about the deployment of Bundeswehr troops demonstrate the need to improve communication about Germany’s security policy to the general public. A broad-based debate on security policy needs to be generated at all levels of society in order to reach a general consensus, on the basis of threat analyses and discussions into the appropriate response. In May, the CDU/CSU parliamentary group will therefore present a draft security strategy for Germany that will analyze security threats both domestic and foreign, both military and non-military, and present appropriate security policy solutions.

Check back later in the week for an update and more discussion on a potential German NSC and the CDUs proposals.

* link in German